|The Hideous Revolution|
THE HIDEOUS REVOLUTION: THE BRITISH MALTHUSIAN REVOLUTION IN THE SCIENCES by PAUL GLUMAZ
A hideous revolution took place in the sciences and in our culture during the later part of the 19th Century which had the aim of remaking the self conception of the human species from that of a cognitive and creative being made in the image of the creator to that of an instinctively driven ape-like creature.
This hideous cultural and scientific revolution has been so successful that while we live in a world of potential unlimited scientific progress, our descent into a totally bestial view of man has created both an inability to realize this potential and with that an existential crisis for the human race.
This hideous revolution was instigated and carried out by a core group of individuals who took over the world’s scientific establishments, first in Great Britain and then later the rest of the world.
The principal organizer, minister of propaganda, and subsequent “pope” of this group was Thomas H. Huxley (1825-1895.)
This revolution and its organizers were based on the work of Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and his idea of “natural selection” to create a new religious like belief system based on “competition” to explain “evolution.”
Alongside and with the help of this new religion, Thomas Huxley organized to impose on the world of religion and science an anti-theological system called “agnosticism.”
We call this revolution and its movement “Malthusian” because Charles Darwin credits Thomas Malthus for the source of his concept of “natural selection.”
Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was a British East India company economist and professor at Haleybury College, the British East India Company School in London. Malthus’s ESSAY ON POPULATION was a plagiarized version of an earlier Venetian economist Gianmaria Ortes work on population.
Malthus’s and Ortes’s concept is that population always increases at a greater rate than the material means to sustain the population. Darwin, in turn, used this idea to claim that the population pressure of more individuals being born than can survive within any species of animal is the driver from which nature then selects the “fittest.” This process of selection of the “fittest” is the key reason some traits survive in a species and some do not. From this idea of the “fittest” the variability within a species, and the creation of new species, or “evolution” occurs.
These “fittest” concepts that were developed in biology by Charles Darwin to explain “natural selection” were then extended to the social, economic, and cultural realm by Thomas Huxley and his group of associates.
In the social and economic realm the ideas of Darwinian “survival of the fittest” were applied by an associate of Darwin and Huxley, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). It is Spencer who developed the concept “Social Darwinism
In the economic realm the Darwinian view was used to justify “free trade” ideology, and brutal exploitation of subject populations. This includes justifying the kinds of induced famines imposed on places like India and Ireland.
Later these Darwinian notions become the basis of the eugenics movement that culminates with Adolph Hitler’s racial hygiene approach to brutal slave labor and extermination camps.
As we enter the year 2009, the 200th Anniversary of Darwin’s birth, Charles Darwin and his Malthusian views are highly celebrated and hegemonic in the biological sciences, the business community, and the environmentalists’ movements of today which want to cull the world population by three-fourths.
. The opposing view to Darwin is contained in the earlier viewpoint of the founding fathers of the United States. The notion of mankind contained in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution is completely at odds with that of Charles Darwin and this hideous Malthusian revolution associated with him. To be a subscriber to the views of Darwin is to implicitly reject, if not actually hate the ideas of the nature of man that are the principles behind the founding of the United States.
The following quote on the nature of man from the Declaration of Independence compared with the modern Darwinian view should make the point.
“….We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life liberty, and pursuit of happiness…”
In comparison today’s modern Darwinian view would sound something like this:
“…We hold these truths as scientifically proven, that all men are biological organisms created unequal by heredity, and they are endowed by eons of random gene selection with certain capabilities and the rights to compete for existence with others in a struggle for survival in a world of limited resources…”
What I will now seek to show is that this hideous “Malthusian” revolution had nothing to do with science as such. Rather, this revolution is about deliberately fostering the destruction of the creative potential and promise of the human race on behalf of an imperial and economic predatory system of exploitation.
It is not a paradox that the leading proponent of Darwin, Thomas Huxley, whom Darwin called “my bulldog,” did not believe Darwin’s theories of “evolution” or “natural selection” had scientific merit. Even though Thomas Huxley did not subscribe to Darwin’s theories, Huxley played a key role in forcing Charles Darwin to publish in 1859 ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES.
In a personal letter to his friend and closest collaborator, Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817-1911), dated September 5, 1858, Thomas Huxley exposes something of his intentions in supporting the need to publish Darwin’s work.
“Wallace’s impetus seems to have set Darwin going in earnest, and I am rejoiced to hear we shall learn his views in full, at last. I look forward to a great revolution being effected. Depend upon it, in natural history, and everything else, when the English mind fully determines to work a thing out, it will do it better than any other…I firmly believe in the advent of an English Epoch in science and art, which will lick the Augustan (which, by the bye had neither science nor art in our sense, but you know what I mean) into fits. (1)
Thomas Huxley is looking forward to a “great revolution” even though he scientifically disagrees with Darwin’s ideas. The “revolution” is not just in science but in art and culture as well. The issue is “licking the Augustan into fits.”
At the time of Huxley writing this comment to Hooker, the British Empire ruled the seas and the finances of the world, but not the world of culture, ideas, and science. In 1858 British science and culture were considered by the world to be inferior to the science and culture that was then emanating from the continent of Europe and the New World.
The word Augustan refers to something that was called the Augustan Age. The Augustan Age is a literary and cultural period that was associated with the Stuart Restoration in the 1660’s, and continued into the early to middle 1700’s. It was a mixture of many different literary trends from Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, to Alexander Pope.
This cultural Augustan Age comes out of the concept of the Stuart Restoration being a kind of new beginning like the early period of the first Roman Emperor Augustus after whom it was named. The Restoration ended the period of religious civil war that existed during the period of Cromwell and had definitively placed the Church of England in control of culture, and politics.
The Church of England promoted the view of the “divine right” of an Aristocracy of birth and a Monarch to rule, and for the Church of England to be the interpreter of that “divine right.” The Church of England, though being committed to an empire like that of Rome for the British Isles, did not have, in the view of the actually emerging private empire of the British East India, the model of thought needed to legitimize, oversee and control a world empire, because the Church of England relied too much on the “divine.”
In sum, the emerging private empire of the British East India Company and the City of London maritime and financial power found itself in conflict with the theocracy and theology of the Church of England and its control over culture, science, and politics.
The reference that Huxley makes to “Wallace” in the quote refers to Alfred Russell Wallace (1821-1911.) Wallace was an explorer, zoologist, and after a similar encounter with Malthus had come with a theory of evolution similar to Darwin’s. Upon planning to publish his theories before Darwin, an intervention was made by numerous men of science to convince Wallace to hold off till Darwin published ORIGINS OF THE SPECIES and to get joint credit for the publication with Darwin.
In Leonard Huxley’s portion of the LIFE AND LETTERS OF THOMAS HUXLEY, Leonard recounts his father telling him: “…Plato was the founder of all the vague and unsound thinking that has burdened philosophy, deserting facts for the possibilities and then after long and beautiful stories of what might be, telling you he doesn’t quite believe them himself…the movement of modern philosophy is back to the position of the old Ionian Philosophers, but strengthened and clarified by sound scientific ideas…the thread of philosophical development is not the lines usually laid down for it. It goes from Democritus and the rest to the Epicureans and then to the Stoics who tried to reconcile it with popular theological ideas.” (2)
Huxley is very clear that his real enemy is Plato, and that there is a need to go back to the materialists of Democritus, and the empiricism of Epicurus. Huxley later developed the term “agnosticism” to represent a key aspect of this return to materialism and empiricism.
Along with “licking the Augustan in to fits,” Thomas Huxley’s deeper intention is to also lead a revolution against any system of thought which had in any way a trace of Socratic dialogue or Platonic thinking, whether in science, religion, culture, or philosophy.
By the 1870’s Huxley’s small group of nine, which had by then formed their own group, that met monthly, called the “X Club,” had taken over all the institutions of science in Great Britain, from the British royal Society to creating the first free public schools, determining their science curricula, to all the organizations in the sciences and education of the British Empire.
Huxley’s influence extended far and wide, including politics and religion. As a principal lecturer, Huxley brought the Darwinian revolution into the then emerging Socialist, Communist, and Anarchists movements and workingman's associations.
Huxley also took the Darwinian revolution into all the religious institutions, for which he developed the anti-theological term “agnosticism.”
Huxley’s Darwinian revolution was exported to the rest of the world. His legacy continued into the 20th Century through his last major protégé, H.G. Wells, and his grandsons Aldous, and Julian Huxley, who collaborated extensively with H.G. Wells.
HUXLEY THE MAN
Thomas Huxley (1825-1875) was a bitter foe of the aristocracy of birth and privilege, and its enforcer the Church of England. Huxley’s preference was to have a meritocracy of the elite instead. Huxley’s harsh, and impoverished early personal life leading to his induction into the most prestigious scientific society, the Royal Society at the age of 25, and a board member of the Society at age 26 is a testament to the existence of powerful patrons who wished to challenge the power of the Church of England.
By the age of 17 Thomas Huxley had developed a lacerating, scornful and sarcastic whit and a deep pessimism about the human condition. Unlike his well educated peers, Thomas Huxley had only two years of formal grammar school education. He was apprenticed at age 13, and again at 15 to different surgeons. While his peers were attending Oxford or Cambridge, Huxley was medically attending the most impoverished in London’s slums who were dying of typhoid, venereal disease, malnutrition, and alcoholism.
On borrowed funds from family, Huxley showed great promise as a medical student winning prizes in Anatomy. His poverty however prevented him from finishing his education to become a licensed Physician.
Instead of becoming a Physician, at 20, Huxley joined the British Navy and was assigned to be the surgeon’s mate on board the research vessel the H.M.S. Rattlesnake. His work on the four year research voyage in studying newly discovered sea organisms off the coast of Australia put Huxley into the elite of the emerging discipline of Comparative Anatomy.
Without family and “school ties,” Huxley was allowed to break his contractual obligations to the British Navy without penalty, and not long after that become a leading member of Britain’s scientific establishment.
One of his early sponsors, and later his greatest opponent was the crown’s most favored zoologist, Richard Owen (1804-1892.) The two would be in a bitter war over fundamental issues of science and evolution for over 40 years. Owen would later call Thomas Huxley a pervert with “some perhaps congenital defect of mind” for denying the Devine will in Nature. (3)
In the latter part of the 18th Century as progress in Science had begun to change the world in a very profound way, discoveries in geology and biological fossils began to contradict the accepted religious view of Creation.
In 1850, when Huxley came off the four year voyage of the H. M. S. Rattlesnake, he was introduced to the leading Geologist Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875), whose work PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY had pretty much won the debate in favor of the idea that steady changes were the primary cause of most geological formations, and that these formations developed over very long time spans. This view was in sharp opposition to the strict interpretation of the Scriptures.
What emerged was a growing scientific sense that living processes, and their environments are “evolving.” The question of how this “evolution” “scientifically” happens, or can be explained became the new battle ground for conflicting world views.
It was Thomas Huxley’s self-conscious intention to use this conflict with both the strict interpretation of Scriptures, as well as over how “evolution” occurs as the means to eliminate the influence of Plato and the “divine” in all areas of thinking.
While Sir Charles Lyell was a friend and collaborator of Darwin since 1837 and helped to get Darwin and Wallace reconciled in the publication of the ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES, Lyell was very concerned that his gradualist view of geology not be transferred to the issue of the origins and development of human beings. Lyell also strongly believed that human beings possessed the faculties of reason that in no way could have gradually emerged from biological evolution. Lyell was deeply concerned that Darwin’s view of natural selection when applied to the origin of the human species could be used to promote a catastrophic criminal view of mankind. He believed that the human species exhibited a completely different quality of cognitive self-consciousness that could not be the result of Darwinian evolution. (4)
Perhaps the most important scientists in biology at the end of the 18th Century were the three Frenchmen: Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), Ettiene Geoffroy Saint Hillaire (1772-1844), and Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829.)
Georges Cuvier and Ettiene Geoffroy were collaborators at the Museum of Natural History in Paris. In the Paris area these two were involved in the development of the findings of fossil remains from species that had become extinct. From their work at the Museum, Cuvier founded the disciplines of Comparative Anatomy and Paleontology, while Geoffroy founded Teratology, the study of animal malformation.
Comparative Anatomy is the Science of comparing living, as well as fossil remains to show the anatomical differences, and similarities so as to class organisms by specie, family, genera, order, etc., as well to hypothesize from this comparison what the origins of these species might be, and what they are most closely related to.
By the early 1820’s Cuvier and Geoffroy had come into severe disagreement over the origins of anatomical forms. This difference culminated in a historic public debate in 1830.
Geoffroy is known for his “unity of composition” principle. That is that all animal life, if not all life is descended from one “archetype” or “design;” whereas Cuvier is known for his “correlation of parts” principle. A change in one part has to be correlated to changes in all other parts, and the “economy” nature.
Cuvier’s argument is that the anatomical characteristics distinguishing groups of animals are evidence that each species is so well coordinated, functionally and structurally, that it could not survive significant change, and thereby could not have changed since the Creation. To Cuvier, one part of an organism can not change without changing all the other parts. Otherwise the organism could not function and would die. Cuvier’s view is that each species was created for its own special purpose and each organ for its special function. Cuvier maintained that the anatomy of all organisms is totally geared to the functions in “the economy of nature.”
In opposition Geoffroy develops the position that the development of the anatomy determines the functional possibilities. Since Geoffroy thought that all animals exhibit the same fundamental plan, he saw no reason why all organisms could not have evolved from a single progenitor.
From the studies of embryos of vertebrates Geoffroy came up with three parts of his “unity of composition” principle. One is the “law of development,” whereby no organ arises or disappears suddenly. This explains vestiges. The second is the “law of compensation,” that an organ can grow disproportionately only at the expense of other organs. The third is the “law of relative position,” that all the parts of all animals maintain the same positions relative to each other.
These three parts of Geoffroy’s “unity of composition” conception suggest that there are coordinated pathways for change within an organism within certain boundaries of proportion and harmonics.
The third Frenchman and contemporary of Cuvier and Geoffroy is Jean Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck developed the theory that “evolution,” as well as changes in biological forms are the product of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. That is organisms adapt to the environment and these adaptations are passed on by inheritance.
Though many have tried to say that Geoffoy’s views on evolution was the forerunner to Darwin in that it made the idea of “evolution” more respectable as opposed to “creation,” Darwin’s views are NOT similar to Geoffroy’s, or to Cuvier’s or even to Lamarck’s.
The “natural selection” idea of Darwin and the “struggle for survival of the fittest” implies no directionality to evolution. This concept of “evolution” by “natural selection” is really not a concept of “evolution.” The concept of “evolution” as seen by Geoffrey in the comparison of anatomical structures is that SOMETHING “evolves” out of SOMETHING, or that there is a lawful progression or process of some kind. That is for “evolution” to work there has to be a “plan,” or a “blueprint” or a “potential” within some “archetypical design” or something of that type in order for there to be something to “develop,” or “evolve,” out of something else.
If one rejects, as Darwin does, that there is an inherent “potential” or “plan” in “evolution,” then one is left with the problem of how something overcomes the problems of change raised by Cuvier, which is the “correlation of parts” problem. You cannot have it both ways.
Either the potential for change is inherent and many parts of an organism are able to change together in a harmonic or coherent way, or if such inherent potential is denied then NO amount of non-directional, random, gradual, and minuscule changes in an infinity of time in the Darwinian sense can get around the “correlation of parts” problem.
In today’s biology, the complexity of metabolic processes that would have to be changed harmonically would be in the hundreds if not thousands of “parts” simultaneously. This would make Darwin’s concept of “evolution” impossible. Contrary to today’s experts the Geoffroy-Cuvier debate is NOT arcane, and needs to be seriously revisited.
The view of “archetypes” as opposed to “natural selection” became the view of the leading zoologist and opponent of Darwin and Huxley in England, Sir Richard Owen. Since “archetypes” were seen as showing God’s design, the battle of “archetypes” versus “natural selection” became in essence the battle of the Church of England versus the Liberal British East India Company crowd and the City of London financiers.
While the scientific truth of the “strict” interpretation of the Bible regarding the antiquity of the earth and mankind can be refuted by evidence in Geology, the very “core” ideas of “man in the image of the creator” as a “creator” too has not been refuted by such evidence.
This was a profound issue with two of Charles Darwin’s collaborators. One, Sir Charles Lyell, who would not abandon the concept of man “in the image of the creator,” and the other, Alfred Russell Wallace who also could not accept Darwin’s views as well.
In Darwin’s day, Alfred Russell Wallace was perhaps the person most familiar in the study of species variability within ecological niches, with many years of observational experience. By 1864 Wallace had come into great disagreement with Darwin and Huxley. Wallace had reached the conclusion that the evolution of matter in the universe could not have occurred in a materialist, gradual, or “natural selection” manner in three very critical instances.
One of these was the transition from inorganic matter to biological matter. The second was the transition from biological matter to the existence of consciousness in higher animals. The third was the transition from higher animals’ sense of consciousness to the ability to reason in mankind. As a result of their being no way to explain these three fundamental leaps in the principle of organization from preceding forms, Wallace became convinced that something outside; something “spiritual” had to have intervened to cause these discontinuous leaps. This unresolved issue ultimately led Wallace to turn to spiritualism.
On the continent of Europe and in the U.S. there was strong opposition to Darwin and Huxley. In the U.S. one of the leaders who opposed them was the Yale professor and geologist Benjamin Silliman (1779-1864.) His scientific journal, JOURNAL OF AMERICAN SCIENCE AND ART was the principal science publication in America for most of a century, and was known to have corresponded with the Crelle Journal of the European heirs to Leibnitz.
Benjamin Silliman inspired several generations of young scientists in the U.S. One of these was James Dwight Dana, who also became Silliman’s son-in-law and successor as editor of the JOURNAL OF AMERICAN SCIENCE AND ART.
James Dwight Dana, (1813-1895), a contemporary of Thomas Huxley, developed from his research sea voyages the view that the directionality of the “evolution” of biological organisms over time seem to proceed toward greater “cephalization.” That is, the “evolution” of biological organisms seems to occur in the direction toward the greater power of the nervous system in animals to respond and interact with the environment. That evolution is in this way was directional.
Thomas Huxley would publicly characterize Benjamin Silliman, in a chiding way as the one “with one eye on the fact and the other on Genesis.” (5) Benjamin Silliman rejected both Darwin and the Creationists.
Under Thomas Huxley’s influence, the religious and political world increasing split into two groups: Those espousing the “creationist” view, and those espousing the “evolutionist” view. Everyone had to make a choice. You were either a “religious creationist” based on a strict interpretation of the Bible, or a “secular” member of Thomas Huxley’s Darwinian Episcopate. Those who were neither were marginalized.
Instead Silliman emphasized that God’s most essential work is being done by mankind through scientific discoveries. He held that while science may contradict one’s imperfect understanding of God, it is by man discovering God’s universal laws in the physical universe, that mankind is participating in God and is fulfilling God’s intention for man, as well as ultimately increasing mankind’s understanding of God.
Later when Prime Minister Gladstone attacked Darwin and Huxley, Huxley said of Gladstone: “It has always astonished me how a man after fifty or sixty years of life (Gladstone) among men could be so ignorant of the best way to handle his materials. If he had only read Dana, he would have found his case much better stated.” (6)
DARWIN’S MALTHUSIAN FAMILY VALUES:
The original full title of Darwin’s 1859 work is ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR PRESERVATION OF THE FAVORED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) in his diary dated October 1838 tells us how he came up with his idea of Natural Selection:
“I happened to read for amusement Malthus ON POPULATION and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at least got a theory by which to work.”
This entry appears roughly 21 years prior to the publication of Darwin’s work. Now let’s quote some of Malthus that Charles Darwin must have found “amusing:”
“…All children who are born beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons…Therefore…we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which compel nature to use…Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits…but above all we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they are doing a service to mankind by protecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disease.” (From ESSAY ON THE PRINCIPLE OF POPULATION)
Thomas Malthus’s “amusing” views provided the “scientific” and economic philosophical justification for the plunder, famine, genocide, and economic rape that the British East India Company meted out to colonial areas like India, and later China through the means of the drug trade.
It is the depredations of humanity by the British East India Company, otherwise called deliberate genocide, which needed a “scientific” self-righteous dogma of justification. Malthus in espousing this viewpoint became the “cause celebre” in the early 1800’s among the high society of private British commercial and banking families.
Today we see the same exact view of Malthus within the British elite publicly exemplified by the likes of Prince Philip, and Prince Charles. Prince Philip’s comment that “in the event of being reincarnated, I would like to come back as a deadly virus to deal with the population problem,” is a more condensed and pithy version of Malthus. (7) In America this view is most publicly represented by our own Al Gore, and the Green movement.
Charles Darwin is not just one individual coming up with a theory of how to explain evolution. Rather, Charles Darwin is an instrument of a network; much of it intermarried, which seeks to justify genocide on behalf of an empire. That is the intention.
It is widely celebrated in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Darwin that his 1838 reading of Malthus’s ESSAY ON POPULATION was a “seminal moment.” The Malthusian party of the time, the Whigs had just passed the Malthusian Poor Law in 1834. At that time Darwin’s dining companion was Harriet Martineau, whom many thought would marry Darwin’s brother Erasmus. Martineau was the Poor Law propagandist whose Malthusian novels won the battle for rounding up the poor and incarcerating them in poor houses so they would stop having children and be made to work.
If we now examine the family connections of the promoters of the Malthusian world view of the British East India Company, and financiers of the City of London, one will discover that it is a tight, closely held, mostly family network, as active today as it was during the time of Darwin.
THE FIRST COUSINS:
There is above all else Darwin’s first cousin and brother-in-law, Hensleigh Wedgwood (1803-1891), whose sister Emma married Charles Darwin in 1839. After Hensleigh’s first wife’s death, Hensleigh married Fannie or Frances McKintosh, the daughter of Sir James McIntosh.
Sir James McIntosh was the closest friend and collaborator of Thomas Malthus. They both taught at the British East India Company Haleybury College. Fannie while married to Hensleigh had an extended affair with Darwin’s brother Erasmus. To deflect from the attention this was causing, Darwin’s future wife Emma was brought in to date Darwin’s brother Erasmus.
Hensleigh Wedgwood was well known in his day as a major legal figure, historian and for his book ON THE ORIGINS OF LANGUAGE. In his book, Hensleigh attacks the position of the German school of the Humboldt brothers on the origins of language. Hensleigh sought to show in his work on language that there are no demarcation points between mere animal grunts and human speech in the gradual evolution of language. Thus, by implication he is asserting that there is no difference between human beings and animals, just a gradual process of change. By what coincidence do these first cousins and in-laws have the same concepts of “evolution;” one in biology and the other in language?
The next first cousin is Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911). Galton is the founder, based on Darwin’s work as so stated by Galton, of the Eugenics movement. This is the movement to cull the human population of its unfit, its criminals, its indigent, its infirm, and to STOP the inferior races from over breeding. Hitler’s racial hygiene policy had its beginnings with Darwin and Galton! Galton firmly believed that genius was purely hereditary.
Another first cousin is the banker, biologist, and Member of British Parliament Sir John Lubbock. Sir John extends the same Darwinian ideas into the study of the “evolution” of social institutions such as the family, property. Sir John is also a member of Huxley’s “X’Club” and played a key political role in this revolution.
Thomas Huxley’s closest collaborator and co-founder of the “X-Club” is the botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817-1911.) Hooker and Huxley both become Presidents of the Royal Society in the 1870’s, and 1880’s. Hooker succeeded his father as the chief Botanist of the Empire.
Hooker is also Darwin’s closest friend and collaborator, and is intimately involved in everything Darwin does and writes. Therefore no one should be surprised that Joseph Hooker married Frances Henslow, the daughter of John Steven Henslow.
John Stevens Henslow is the botanist and chief mentor of Darwin and the man that Darwin claims to have had greatest influence on him. Henslow was Regis Professor of Botany at Oxford, and tutor to children of Queen Victoria.
The next major “crony” is Herbert Spencer who is also a member of the “X-Club.” He is best known for coining the phrases “survival of the fittest,” and “Social Darwinism.”
Both Huxley and Spencer first met at the salon of Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) which included Harriet Martineau, John Stuart Mill, and John Chapman, the publisher of the free-trade journal The Economist, which had first employed Spencer. For decades Spencer was Huxley’s principal Sunday walk partner.
In PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGY (1855), Spencer rejects the idea of the human mind being anything more than a construction of atomic sensations. These atomic sensations represented the association of ideas which then became imbedded in the brain tissue and could be passed on by inheritance. He espoused a view that all phenomena, including human thinking could be explained such means.
Along with Darwin’s first cousin Sir Francis Galton, Spencer is the major proselytizer of the idea of the innate racial superiority of the upper classes. In Spencer’s grand universal scheme the “fittest” were the socially and economically most successful both within societies and between societies. Spencer espoused the view that the “savage” or inferior races of mankind were the “unfit” and would soon die out. For this reason, Spencer was against any policy that helped the poor, and he vehemently organized against all charities, child labor laws, women’s rights, and education for the poor and the “uncivilized.” Such measures, he claimed, interfered with the laws of natural evolution, or “social Darwinism” as he called it.
By the 1870’s Spencer had with these views become the most popular and widely read philosopher in the English speaking world.
The next “crony” and also member of the “X-Club” is the physicist John Tyndall (1820-1893.) Tyndall and Huxley were both in their time the most popular lecturers in Science. As a leading physicist and friend of chemist Michael Faraday, Tyndall was a key supporter of Huxley’s and Darwin’s Malthusian revolution in the sciences, and the key ally in Science for Huxley’s “agnosticism.”
The last major “crony” of Darwin and Huxley is the German proponent of the Darwinian revolution and a principal correspondent of Huxley and Darwin, zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919.) Haeckel probably did more than anyone else to popularize Darwin ideas to the world. Haeckel’s THE HISTORY OF CREATION, first in German in 1868, then its English translation in 1876 was probably the most read book explaining Darwinism in the world.
Haeckel is also credited with founding the discipline of ecological science and giving it its name. He is one of the first to deal with the concepts of human overpopulation in the biological context of the “balance” of the ecology.
Haeckel also believed that the social sciences are basically “applied biology.” In this regard he became the key leader of the eugenics and racial hygiene movement in Germany that led directly to Hitler.
THE CHILDREN OF THE DARWINIAN REVOLUTION
From Darwin, Huxley, and their “cronies” to the next generation you begin to see a transition from “theory” to “practice.” The theories that are developed in the Darwinian revolution such as “natural selection”, “survival of the fittest,” the “descent of man from the apes,” “eugenics,” begin to give way as these theories become more popular to ideas of “perfecting” the human species of the costly “useless eaters” and “misfits” who are breeding the “unfit.”
The most notable son of Charles Darwin in this regard is his son Leonard Darwin (1850-1943.) Leonard became the President of the British Eugenics society (1911-1928) succeeding his half-cousin Francis Galton. Since Leonard was not known in the Darwin family for having the brightest marbles in the litter, he more compensated however for this deficiency by his incessant efforts on behalf of cleansing the human species of the ‘unfit.”
Leonard Darwin’s most important protégée is Ronald A. Fisher (1890-1962) who pioneers the creation of statistics in genetics that is the basis of modern Darwinism.
Ronald is notorious for refusing to shift away from his racist and eugenicist views after the defeat of Hitler and end of World War II. He embarrassed many by being very vitriolic in denouncing the United Nations after WW II for not openly making genetic distinctions between races the basis of U.N. policy. The modern Darwinpath, Richard Dawkins, claims that Ronald Fisher is the “greatest of Darwin’s successors.”
Another son of Darwin, Horace Darwin, is the co-founder with Ronald Fisher of the infamous Cambridge Eugenics Society with another infamous person John Maynard Keynes.
Now we come to Thomas Huxley’s brood. The most notable is Huxley’s son Leonard Huxley (1860-1933). Leonard is the school master, writer, editor part of the Darwin revolution. He writes the biographies and compiles the writings and letters for three major figures who were leading the utilitarian Darwin-Malthusian revolution in science and culture. These works are: LIFE AND LETTERS OF THOMAS HUXLEY; LIFE AND LETTERS OF SIR JOSEPH DALTON HOOKER OM, GCSI; and THOUGHTS ON EDUCATION DRAWN FROM THE WRITINGS OF MATTHEW ARNOLD.
Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) is a Victorian poet, a leading educator and an Inspector of Her Majesty’s Schools. While not a member of Huxley’s “X-Club,” he was a regular dining guest at their monthly meeting. Arnold’s “cosmopolitan” cultural, educational, and literary views are considered to be the forerunner to the future main instrument of the British Empire, the Fabian Society.
In the cultural realm, Arnold made the German cultural term “Philistine” popular in Great Britain as an attempt to upgrade the British elite from their more boorish tendencies.
In education, Arnold was a leader in the movement to dump Latin, Greek and Classics in education. Arnold was also concerned with the “problem” of educating the children of the emerging middle class. Arnold viewed the children of the middle class as the most serious threat to the Empire in their “unruliness” and lack of respect for “authority.”
The improved sense of power and material circumstances in society of the middle class created problems of intellectual control for an imperial oligarchy. The children of the middle class cannot be allowed to have a “superior,” “historical,” “cultural” or “creative” identity that a classical education in Greek and Latin might bestow on them.
Arnold himself comes from a family of educators. His brother Thomas Arnold was also a noted educator and collaborator of Matthew. In keeping with Darwin’s family values, Thomas’s daughter, Julia Arnold, became the first wife of Leonard Huxley. The most famous offspring of this couple were Julian and Aldous Huxley and they can both count Matthew Arnold as their great-uncle.
THE GRANDCHILDREN AND GREAT GRANDCHILDREN:
We now come to the grandson of Charles Darwin, Charles Galton Darwin (1887-1962.) He too was a prominent leader in the British Eugenics movement, becoming the principal leader of the British Eugenics Society after WWII till his death in 1962. He led the British Eugenics Society, which meant the world’s eugenics movement, during a period when the memory of Hitler’s excesses had made it very unpopular.
However this Charles Darwin was not as timid as his namesake grandfather who very much feared being seen in public promoting the ideas of “natural selection.” This Charles was an ardent eugenicist, and not afraid of public scorn, and who before his retirement as a physicist had been Director of the National Physics Laboratory with oversight over the British side of the Manhattan Project and the creation of atomic weapons.
In 1952 this Charles Darwin’s book NEXT MILLION YEARS was published which recast the issue of eugenics not in terms of racial hygiene, but in terms of curbing population growth. Charles estimated that the time it would take for mankind to biologically evolve into a new species to be a million years. In the meantime till a new type of human species biologically emerged, this Charles saw the principal problem of the human race being that human beings were essentially “wild animals” that could not be fully “tamed,” though every effort should be done to do so. As a result this Charles Darwin projected a Malthusian catastrophe for mankind.
Given however the success that in recent times the British Eugenics Society has had in recasting the debate on eugenics to one of “overpopulation,” as their post war leader developed in his NEXT MILLION YEARS, one can see the culmination of this influence in the newly elected Obama administration and its Health Care Reform Policy. It was the the British Eugenics society that launched the founding of the Hastings Center on euthanasia, which in turn is providing the policy and the professionals like Ezekiel Emmanuel to run Obama’s new Hitler like “cull the unfit” genocide program in the U.S. called Health Care Reform. One could definitely claim that Darwin’s Family Values keep coming back, generation after generation, from that Malthusian crypt to haunt us.
The granddaughter of the original Charles Darwin, Charles Dalton Darwin’s sister Margaret married Geoffrey Keynes, the brother of another prominent member of the British Eugenics Society, John Maynard Keynes. The son of this Charles Darwin, George Pember Darwin (1928-2001) in 1964 married Angela Huxley the great-grand-daughter Thomas Huxley, and so it goes on.
One of the leading German followers of the original Charles Darwin and his promoter in Germany Ernst Haeckel is Alfred Ploetz (1860-1940.) Alfred Ploetz did much to introduce eugenics into America. He is credited with being one of the key persons who coined the term “racial hygiene” and developed an extensive body of academic work on “culling the unfit.”
On returning to Germany in 1936 Alfred was appointed by Adolph Hitler to the top board of experts along with infamous Ernst Rudin to oversee the implementation of “racial purification.” It turns out that Alfred’s wife is also the sister of Ernst Rudin.
While the Obama administration won’t call it “racial purification,” these same type of boards, with the same kind of power, are being set-up again to begin “culling the unfit” of today who are an unwelcome burden on the resources of society.
One of the leading genocidal Malthusians today who is promoting population reduction under an environmentalist banner is another prominent member of the Darwin Family Values group. His name is Sir Crispin Tickell. As a leading government official and President of the Royal Geographical Society, Sir Tickell was the advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that induced her to begin British Government funding of the “climate change” movement, and the movement to set up a global environmental dictatorship over economic activity through the taxing and capping of carbon emissions. Sir Crispin Tickell is directly descendent from Thomas Huxley through his oldest daughter Jessica, whose daughter Oriana is the grandmother of Sir Crispin.
Last but not least, the most important person by far in this group of Darwin Family Values is Sir Julian Huxley (1887-1975.) Julian is the grandson of Thomas Huxley and son of Leonard Huxley. It is Julian who plays the most pivotal role in leading the Darwinian revival called the “new evolutionary synthesis.” And more extensive section is devoted to him below.
Thomas Huxley, though he disagreed with Darwin’s “natural selection” thesis, nonetheless believed that humans were just another animal, and were obviously descended from the apes. Since the Darwinian revolution was begun, the door was now open for the issue that Thomas Huxley was most keen on, that is the issue of mankind’s descent from the apes, or where did humans come from?
Continental science conceived of evolution of the earth and forms on the earth as occurring in a non-random, directed way in which the cognitive powers of humanity represent the pinnacle of the evolutionary process. To Huxley this view of humanity was to him an anathema. It was in this context that Thomas Huxley made his most, to this day far reaching, controversial propagandistic move; to claim that all human beings are both descended from the apes, and that mankind is in reality just another ape. To this end Thomas Huxley published his MAN’S PLACE IN NATURE.
It was always Huxley’s intention to bring man down to the level of an ape. This was the most direct attack on the concept that human beings are fundamentally distinct from the animals.
This use of the idea that mankind is descended from the apes biologically, as the core of human identity, has so shaped the modern sense of human identity in direct opposition to the concept of the human species being distinct from animals, that is almost impossible for people today to know that they have any other identity than that of a beast.
Whatever case is made for the anatomical and biological similarity between apes and humans, the species distinction for humans is not biological. Whether or not apes or any other species going back to some ancient beginning have or have not some genetic material connection to humanity is beside the point. What makes us distinctly human is not biology, nor is it biologically determined.
Everything today is permeated by this view of mankind as just another animal: Medicine, Psychology, Psychiatry, Human Relations, Biology, Anthropology, Advertising, Music, Popular Culture, and Religion up to an including the social and sexual relations between people. This includes most emphatically the belief in the genetic determinism of human behavior, character, and the potential to learn. This same viewpoint in an earlier time would be called RACISM. For if potential intelligence, and human behavior is primary biologically determined by genetics, with environmental co-factors thrown in, as it is almost universally believed, then we are governed as a people by a racist, biological determinism. Our true species nature which is not biological is thereby imprisoned in this racist biological determinism in everything that we think and do.
With this “man an ape” viewpoint, Thomas Huxley became one of the leading public speakers for what were known as workingman’s lectures. The socialist, communist, labor, and other “radical” anti-establishment movements in Great Britain, relied heavily on Thomas Huxley as a speaker to preach the “materialist ape origins” of the human species. This view of man caught on very big with the socialists and communists, including Karl Marx and especially with Frederick Engels.
In this ape-like venue, and based on his studies of physical anthropology, Huxley classified the human race into four racial categories, Europeans, Mongolian, Negro, and Australian, with each category broken down into sub-sets. So from this Darwin and Huxley movement we also get the whole racist division of humanity with various explanations of different attributes to explain and justify why the European race is superior, and how various races differ from each other in lip dimensions, nose dimensions, cranial cavity size, round or flat headedness, and skin color, etc. On the basis of these kinds of classifications the earlier Colonial world was run.
VI- AGNOSTICISM AND THE NEW PRIESTHOOD OF SCIENCE
Two developments of importance occur in the 1860’s in the “procession through the institutions” of Huxley’s young group of associates. One is the founding of the “X Club” with nine members. The peak of the Club’s influence was from 1873-1885.
The “X Club” also sponsored and launched organs of propaganda. One publication was the weekly READER which was bought. Another publication was Natural History Review of which Huxley became part owner. Both these publications were used in the early 1860’s to promote the pro-Darwinian view. Thomas Huxley was the leading editor and polemicist in these publications. These two publications failed, and were replaced by a fully “X-Club” backed publication that was launched in 1869 called NATURE. This publication is still in existence, and has been a core Darwinian propaganda outlet to this day.
The second development occurred in 1869 with the formation of a discussion group which became known as the Metaphysical Society. The Metaphysical Society lasted till 1880. The purpose of the Society was to meet and discuss fundamental issues such as “Is God knowable?” or “What is a Lie?,” or “the ethics of belief,” or “what is death?” Present were leading Catholic Cardinals, Protestant Bishops, writers, journalists, atheists, agnostics like Huxley and some more strange like John Ruskin. Among the rotating chairman were Thomas Huxley, Sir John Lubbock, and Mr. Gladstone, the Prime Minister.
From extant eye witness descriptions, everyone was cordial and the discussions would generally come down to Huxley demonstrating that “the working hypothesis of science” laboring gradually over the years through empirical work was far superior to all the metaphysical speculation about anything. (8) That God is unknowable empirically.
At an early age Thomas Huxley’s interest in Philosophy had led him to learn German and study Emmanuel Kant in German. (Huxley later as a result of his mastery of German became the translator for Charles Darwin’s German correspondence.) Combined with Kant, Huxley became at an early age the convert to a Scottish philosopher Sir William Hamilton (1788-1856.) Huxley read extensively Hamilton along with Kant in his adolescence. Later Thomas Huxley coined the word “agnosticism” to represent this view.
Thomas Huxley embraced Darwinism even though he was in disagreement with it scientifically because he saw his main mission as that of ridding Science of any Platonic ideas, theological considerations, metaphysics, teleology, universal lawfulness, or any concept of “directedness” in the functions of the Universe. In so doing he created a “new” imperial “religion” which was called “agnosticism.”
This new “religion” of “agnosticism” would not be for masses. This new “religion” of “agnosticism” is the new “religion” of the functionaries of the empire; that is the “scientists,” the “academics,” and the more enlightened “liberal clerics.” As for the masses, they can have all the “irrational” beliefs and “feelings” they would want, but not the knowledge of universal principles! Every variety of irrational cults will be allowed, if not promoted for the masses. With an “agnostically” administrated empire, the masses can war with each other over their intense feelings about “their” religion and thus have “their” emotions and energies kept perpetually directed and occupied at war with each other.
Today “agnosticism” is the most hegemonic belief concerning issues of God, Religion, Theology, and Science among the educated strata of our society. We are today living in a completely agnostic intellectually dominated world. As a person of science you can not know, nor are you permitted to assert the truthfulness of the existence of God. Nor can you know, nor are you permitted to assert conversely that God does not exist. That is because even to assert that God does or does not exist implies that human beings HAVE A CAPACITY TO KNOW! Your intellect and reasoning faculty cannot know the existence, or non-existence of God, or for that matter any other universal principle. All beliefs in God, and any theological assertion beyond “not knowing” (agnosticism) are inherently “irrational” and beyond “empirical” proof.
So what can you prove in terms of fundamental principles involving the lawfulness of the universe according to the hegemonic “religion” of “agnosticism” that now rules the sciences? NOTHING! So what is left? What is left is STATISTICS! That is the statistics of things “bumping” into each other. Take the erroneously impossible, universally accepted orthodox “law” of today’s scientific community concerning the government of our universe: the “second law of thermodynamics.” All the “second law of thermodynamics” represents is merely statistical projections of “heat loss” of “things” “bumping” into each other projected onto an unknowable (agnostic) universe. “We don’t know anything but statistical probabilities.” In the agnosticism of “modern science” there is no causality other than the “bumping” into each other of “things” in ways we can never fully understand, other than they are “bumping” into each other.
What about Darwinism? It’s the same thing! Random mutations in ways we can never know create “statistical probabilities” for increased survival for “random” changes caused by “random” events. In other words, human beings are unable to know the existence of any real causation, just statistics! Or to put it in another way, the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Universe is unknowable to the human species. All we can know is our “bumping” into “things.”
This is the Empire! These are some of the chains that bind our people to a bestial world view, and these are some of the historical personalities from which that bestial world view is derived. This bestial world view about human beings is intrinsically a “racist” point of view in that differences among humans are biologically and hereditarily determined along with everything else. Most of this “racist” thinking is not just directed against others, but even more so WE DIRECT IT AGAINSTS OURSELVES! We don’t strive to develop ourselves to our full human and intellectual capacity because deep down we don’t believe we can. We are just animals, not really human. Darwin and Huxley and their Malthusian revolution give us the excuse we need to reject our potential to develop, and spare us the responsibility of doing so.
This Malthusian derived revolution in religion and the sciences is what was intended by Thomas Huxley. That is the nightmare we are living in today in which the existence of one’s true humanity as a species is outlawed in the sciences, the culture and in the general outlook that dominates our society. In this Darwinism was only the means; genocide, racism, and agnosticism were only some of the results.
THE FRAUD: PILTDOWN MAN
By the year 1900 Darwinism was on the wane in the scientific community. It lacked the experimental proof that it needed to justify its tenets. Darwinism was under attack from many quarters. It lacked most of all some discovery of an intermediate form between man and ape. Mendelian population theory and genetics were not prepared yet to come to the rescue of Darwinism. What was required was fossil evidence of intermediate forms.
We are now ready to discuss one of the great secrets of the British Empire to this day: The Piltdown Man hoax. The hoax was finally and fully solved in the late 1980’s by one Charles S. Blinderman, who so feared for his life at his discovery, even at such a late date from the committing of the crime (1908), that he only mentioned the solution in a brief sentence on page 87 of his book on the subject THE PILTDOWN INQUEST, 1986. That sentence reads: “A short paper of mine in the Journal of Irreproducible Results (1986) proves almost beyond the shadow of a doubt that the British Secret Service was the Piltdown hoaxer.”
Nowhere else in the 258 page book is his personal view on this referred to. Blinderman is not a biologist, nor a paleontologist, no a physical anthropologist. He is a criminal investigator, and I fully concur with his personal finding that MI-5 ran the Piltdown forgery and that those who were accused of fabricating the hoax and did fabricate the hoax were being directed by British Intelligence. Many of the suspects, who were later accused after the news of the hoax became public in 1953, appear also to have died in unusual and mysterious ways. While I sympathize with Blinderman’s fears for his personal safety in revealing his criminal investigator’s conclusions in anything other than a very oblique form, not exposing the truth of this hoax leaves the actual culprits and the hand directing them, and the intentions of that hand, free from any scrutiny in one of the greatest criminal hoaxes of all time.
It is the Piltdown Hoax, coming as it did beginning in 1908 that “proved” on the deepest level to most of the world the existence of the “evolutionary missing link” between ape and man. Second, on a more shallow level it was used to propagandize against the German discoveries of Neanderthal fossils in preparation for WWI against Germany. That is that Britain could outdo the Germans in having the oldest remains, and was thereby superior to the Germans in this area.
Basically the hoaxers fabricated a fossil by fusing the cranium of a human with the jaws of an ape. Many of the comparative anatomists and paleontologists from the U.S. and Europe initially considered the Piltdown fossil discovered in Great Britain to be just that, the fusion of a human cranium with an ape jaw. But the globally extended British propaganda outpouring in support of the veracity of the Piltdown Man fossil dwarfed the influence of any skepticism that came from more serious scientific quarters. The names of the hoaxers are not that important. They hoaxers include a then soon to be Jesuit Catholic Priest, Tilliard de Chardin, the British Museum, several antiquarians, including the individual antiquarian most blamed, Charles Dawson, several professors, and a still to this day popularly read fiction writer, Arthur Conan Doyle, and others. What is important is that they were all in on it together under the direction of the just then created MI-5 branch of British Intelligence.
The media blitz at the time promoting the Piltdown hoax dwarfed anything like it. Prizes were given to the hoaxers. Memorials were created. It was a fraud from beginning to end, including those who have since “revealed” the fraud.
The Piltdown Hoax became the SACRED COW of the British Empire. With the Piltdown Hoax, Darwin’s and Huxley’s theories were definitively proven to most of the world. The Piltdown Hoax helped greatly the eugenics movement. Piltdown Man was not only the “missing link” proving the ape origins of man, but also the whole gradual evolutionary process of the “struggle for the survival of the fittest.” It was proof to everyone that humans were just a more developed ape. From this it could then be presented that all the races are gradually descended from the apes, and there is no quality of universal humanity shared by all humans, just different races with different attributes descendent from the apes, some races or groups of humans being more advanced than others. The absolutely monstrous effects of this hoax can not ever be overestimated.
Later on going into the middle 20th Century as new fossils of hominids were being discovered, it became apparent that all the new fossils being discovered did not in any way conform to the Piltdown Man formula of a big cranium with ape-like jaws. As the most celebrated fossil of the British Empire, the Piltdown Man was becoming increasingly lonely. However, by the time it was decided by British Intelligence to allow for the world to know about the hoax, in the 1950’s, the battle of imperial ideology had shifted from issues of race science and eugenics to issues of “overpopulation” and “ecology,” and the Piltdown Hoax, which had done its job, was no longer necessary. Nonetheless the underlying Malthusian justification for genocide has remained the same, even though the imperial battle of ideology has shifted its terrain.
To this day all public discussions of the Piltdown Hoax are restricted to a kind of “who done it” type controversy pitting one suspect against another. All kinds of motives and the various different suspects become the grist for a non-ending controversy that never examines the larger intentions of the hoax. Except for the oblique mention of the obvious by criminal investigator Charles Blinderman, who confines his thesis out of fear to a spoof publication, Journal of Irreproducible Results, the real truth of the Piltdown hoax, and its true authors and intentions is not discussed in print anywhere but perhaps here.
Lastly, as far as British Intelligence was concerned, by the middle 1950’s, the emergence of the new “modern synthesis” in biology under Julian Huxley, Thomas Huxley’s grandson, and H.G. Wells made it possible to also no longer require anything like the Piltdown hoax to affirm Darwin and Huxley.
One last note on fossil remains should be stated here. As far as more modern attempts to find the “missing link” between ape and man it has become a matter of the interpretation of bones. But no degree of the interpretation of bones can show that any fossil is human. Only evidence of the products of human reason in the form of remains can prove that the fossils are human. A good example of such remains would be evidence of the use of fire.
JULIAN HUXLEY AND H. G. WELLS: THE MODERN SYNTHESIS AND THE EMPIRE OF DRUGGED ZOMBIES
Under the direction of Thomas Huxley’s heirs, namely H.G. Wells and Julian Huxley, a new revival in Darwinism was effected with far ranging implications for today. This revival was named the “Evlutionary Synthesis,” or the “new Synthesis,” or the “Modern Synthesis.” Julian Huxley is credited with founding the movement.
This new revival of Darwinism merged a number of disciplines into an interconnected group that was used to “prove” once and for all that Darwin’s “natural selection” is “scientifically” correct. From this “Syntheis” the domains of biochemistry, genetics, population studies, and ecological field studies were merged. Instead of us human beings being merely descended from the apes, we are now governed by biochemical and genetically determined processes down to our predisposition in all areas of behavior, intelligence, disease, sexual preferences, even altruism. To be descended from the apes is not enough for this more modern Darwinian revolution.
The basics of the theory are as follows: The genes or the DNA are being constantly impacted by background radiation and other factors which cause mutation, or small changes in the DNA, and its sequences. This is called “genetic drift.” This “genetic drift” is supposedly constant. The DNA is supposed to be the blueprint that passes on inherited characteristics. Then the environment acts on these inherited changes in the organism and selects out those changes that benefit the survival of individual organisms. Over time this leads to speciation and evolution.
Also involved is the concept of “gene pool,” in that populations have large variations of genetic material which is always undergoing natural selection pressure and change. If a group of organisms of a species become geographically isolated from others of the same species, the isolated species will tend to differentiate quicker from its cousins because over time and “genetic drift” they will begin to develop a different “gene pool.” In this process of “natural selection” there is, as in the older version, NO DIRECTIONALITY IN THE PROCESS. It is basically governed by “random” and steady genetic mutations.
The problem with this whole view is the same as the earlier view. Human beings are mere animals not just governed by instincts, but also now by an even more controlling biochemical and biogenetic determinism. The mind itself is not something capable of reason, distinct from the animals, but is primarily a genetically connected biochemical process, and can be treated as such.
H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell both promoted an “open conspiracy” in which one of the components of control over the population would be biochemical. Julian Huxley’s brother, Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD, which is the world we are living in today, is essentially one of the products of this “New Evolutionary Synthesis.”
It is no accident that the most hideous form of slavery in the world is the use of drugs to control populations. In one way or another, whether it is massive use of Ritalin in the schools, or use of Heroin in the streets, the population of the world is increasingly succumbing to this rapidly growing form of slavery and control. This would not be possible if we did not already live in a culture that defines our identity as that of mere animal, governed by genetic and biochemical processes.
This bestial culture and its depredation of humanity have two goals. The first goal is to extirpate the higher faculties in all but a very few of the human population in order to make slaves of the vast majority of the population. Denying and stifling the cognitive potential of all but a few human beings is the core policy of empire, whether in education, science, or economics.
The second goal is Malthusian, and that is to cause the population to be reduced to one to two billion people, from the current close to seven billion people. At one to two billion people not much industrialization is needed to sustain the population. Without the need for industrialization and scientific progress, one can restrict the need and number of cognitive individuals to perhaps only a few of the very elite who run the empire. Otherwise, increasing economic development also means increasing population which in turn increases the potential for more cognitive beings to emerge who might somehow escape the mental control of the empire, and create problems for it.
H.G. Wells and Julian Huxley both collaborated in producing a very popular 1500 page well crafted book in 1939, THE SCIENCE OF LIFE. This book began the popular revival of Darwin in the population, anticipating the need for the Darwinians to regroup from the decline that Darwinism had suffered previously. “The New Synthesis” of Julian Huxley was a result of that regrouping.
Nonetheless the racist and anti-human bias of H.G. Wells and Julian Huxley could not help but emerge from the section of their book dealing with “ecological” science. The last paragraph of the SCIENCE OF ECOLOGY SECTION on page 1011 is as follows: “Unrestrained breeding, for man and animals alike, whether they are mice, lemmings, locusts, Italians, Hindoos, or Chinamen, is biologically a thoroughly evil thing.” 10
This year is Darwin’s 200th birthday. Darwinism is not a scientific issue. Darwin’s theory of “natural selection” as a scientific issue has never been the issue. The scientific truth of evolution and how it takes place is not yet known. What we do know is that it cannot be random. We know this because we are human beings and we make plans for the future and we are not random in our actions.
The universe is not governed by statistically random processes! To believe so is to believe in the irrational. Not knowing the cause of things does not make it random. To substitute randomness for causality is not just unscientific it is insane. Also, how is it possible to discover the science behind evolution, if anything but randomness as an explanation is outlawed?
The real issue and the truths behind the revolution of Darwin and Huxley are political. Neither Thomas Huxley, nor his grandson Julian Huxley cared much for whether there was any truth in Darwin’s theories. The issue for the Huxley’s, and “Darwin’s family values” was never truth, or Science. The issue for them was who was going to control the ideas that govern the thinking of those who influence and run society! The issue was how and who would control “science,” and for whom. Without the Darwinian-Huxley revolution in the sciences, the empire we face today of Malthusian genocide would have been defeated long ago. We would now be colonizing the solar system instead of entering a Dark Age collapse of civilization.
In conclusion, almost every reader of this article, if not every reader of this article, has been severely victimized by this racist, Malthusian, genocidal, political revolution in human identity and the sciences. It has tremendous control about how you think about the world and about yourself.
If you wish to reclaim your real humanity that is not Darwinian, or “naturally selected” it is encouraged that you begin reading the works of Lyndon LaRouche. It is also encouraged that you go to the website of the LaRouche movement, larouchepac.com.
1- Huxley, Leonard: LIFE AND LETTERS OF THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY. VOL I Appleton, 1902 p.171
2- IBID VOL II p.451
3- Morris, Desmond FROM DEVIL’S DISCIPLE TO EVOLUTION’S HIGH PRIEST, Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley, 1997.
4- Lyons, Sherrie L. THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY, THE EVOLUTION OF A SCIENTIST, Prometheus Books, 2000 p.132
5- Fulton, John F. and Thompson, Elizabeth H: BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, PATHFINDER IN AMERICAN SCIENCE, Yale U. School of Medicine, 1947
6- LETTERS Opus Cit. p.130?
7- Prince Phillip’s Radio Address in the 80’ in Germany
8- Hutton, R.H: ACCOUNTS OF 1885 METAPHYSICAL SOCIETY MEETINGS
9- Blinderman, Charles: THE PILTDOWN INQUEST, Prometheus Books 1986
10- Wells, H. G. and Huxley, Julian S: THE SCIENCE OF LIFE, Garden City Publishing Co, Inc.,1939 .